uq00g0? Applicant's arrest by the Respondent state's immigration officers, that is, on g June 2006. The obvious conclusion is that the Applicant did not obtain these documents to preempt his arrest. 80. On this specific point, the Court's position is reinforced by the decision of the concerned authorities made on 16 June 2006 to withdraw the illegal residence case filed against the Applicant, to release him and his family members, and to allow him to stay in Tanzania to pursue his cases before domestic courts. This demonstrates that the Respondent State had alternatives to the issuance of a Notice of Prohibited Immigrant followed by arrest and deportation. 8'1. ln light of the above, the court holds that the Applicant,s arrest in the circumstances of this case constitutes a violation of his right to residence and, consequently, of his freedom of movement. 82. As a consequence of the foregoing, the court finds the Respondent state in violation of Article 12(1) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to dignity 83. The Applicant alleges that the fact that the Respondent State's prison officers undressed him before his children and made him bend over to search into his anus for marijuana and money constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and violated his right to dignity guaranteed under Article 5 of the Charter. 84. ln reply to the Respondent State's submission that "cavity searches" are a current practice in its prisons, the Applicant avers that such is not an acceptable justification and cannot in any case apply indiscriminately to all persons, without first determining the penalties faced in specific circumstances. He further submits that he should not have been treated like any other criminal even if he was presumed to be an illegal immigrant. 85. ln its Response to the Application, the Respondent State does not deny the facts as recounted by the Applicant but justified the same by stating that,,... cavity 2t